What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as it sought reconsideration of a non-final order; Petition for Removal denied for failure to demonstrate irreparable harm, significant prejudice, or inadequacy of reconsideration as a remedy.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant's attorney challenging an order taking the matter off calendar; WCJ recommended dismissal of the petition as the order was non-final and denial of removal for failure to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The petition was dismissed because the order taking the matter off calendar was a non-final order, and reconsideration is only proper for final orders. Removal was denied because the petitioner failed to show irreparable harm, significant prejudice, or that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 7Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order taking this matter off calendar. We treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny removal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The order taking the matter off calendar was a non-final order and thus not subject to reconsideration.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because reconsideration is only proper for final orders, the petition was dismissed on this basis.
From the decision · page 4A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1171, 1180, 260 Cal. Rptr. 76; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534§ 535 [163 Cal. Rptr. 750, 45 Cal. Comp. Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal. App. 3d 39, 45 [43 Cal. Comp. Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 65 Cal. Comp.
Petitioner failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, significant prejudice, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure justified denial of removal, supporting dismissal of the petition.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg., (2024) 89 Cal. Comp. Cases 462, 475 (En Banc)
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.
The order taking the matter off calendar was interlocutory and not final, so the petition for reconsideration was improper.
From the decision · page 4A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1171, 1180, 260 Cal. Rptr. 76; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534§ 535 [163 Cal. Rptr. 750, 45 Cal. Comp. Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal. App. 3d 39, 45 [43 Cal. Comp. Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 65 Cal. Comp.
Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600
The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.
Petitioner failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice to justify removal.
From the decision · page 5III. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.